| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Shawn" |
| Date: |
21 May 2004 11:41:55 PM |
| Object: |
AA: Paradox demonstrating God's non-existance... or not? |
Howdy fellow atheists,
On another newsgroup I've been having a discussion with a Christian
regarding the existance/non-existance of God.
What came up was the question of God's supposed omnipotence. The Xian
claims that God has limited his omnipotence and omniscience in order to
permit freewill for humans.
At first I thought this a ridiculous argument. If God were to give up
his omnipotence, then how could he ever get it back? Then it occurred
to me that God could reduce his powers for a limited period of time.
Sort of like handcuffing one self's arms behind their back with a pair
of handcuffs that automatically unlock after an hour.
Which brings me to a paradox I'm rather fond of for demonstrating the
impossibility of God:
"Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? If he can, then
his inability to lift it means that God is not omnipotent. If he cannot,
then his ability to create is limited. Thus, either way, his powers are
limited and hence God is not omnipotent. Since no omnipotent being
exists and God is defined to be omnipotent, God does not exist."
But what if God created a rock and then made himself unable to lift it
for 5 minutes? True, during those 5 minutes God is not omnipotent - and
therefore may not be a god for those 5 minutes - but he would return to
omnipotence at the end of 5 minutes.
Any thoughts, counter arguments, etc?
-- Shawn
.
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Paradox demonstrating God's non-existance... or not? |
22 May 2004 01:50:11 AM |
|
|
"Shawn" <use@reply.to.address> wrote in message
news:10atmgcev4623ca@corp.supernews.com...
Howdy fellow atheists,
On another newsgroup
Which one is that?
I've been having a discussion with a Christian
regarding the existance/non-existance of God.
What came up was the question of God's supposed omnipotence. The Xian
claims that God has limited his omnipotence and omniscience in order to
permit freewill for humans.
Limited omnipotence.... limited omnipotence.... lim..
<BANG!>
Oh well, there goes another irony meter.
One might wonder why God would limit his potence
(and permit freewill).
At first I thought this a ridiculous argument. If God were to give up
his omnipotence, then how could he ever get it back? Then it occurred
to me that God could reduce his powers for a limited period of time.
Sort of like handcuffing one self's arms behind their back with a pair
of handcuffs that automatically unlock after an hour.
Which brings me to a paradox I'm rather fond of for demonstrating the
impossibility of God:
"Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? If he can, then
his inability to lift it means that God is not omnipotent. If he cannot,
then his ability to create is limited. Thus, either way, his powers are
limited and hence God is not omnipotent. Since no omnipotent being
exists and God is defined to be omnipotent, God does not exist."
Personally I don't like that paradox.
It is perhaps valid but not terribly relevant.
How does it affect the lives of humans?
But what if God created a rock and then made himself unable to lift it
for 5 minutes? True, during those 5 minutes God is not omnipotent - and
therefore may not be a god for those 5 minutes - but he would return to
omnipotence at the end of 5 minutes.
Does everybody who dies during that 5 minutes
get into heaven or are they lost in limo?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matthew Lonergan" |
|
| Title: Re: Paradox demonstrating God's non-existance... or not? |
22 May 2004 01:21:54 AM |
|
|
"Shawn" <use@reply.to.address> wrote in message
news:10atmgcev4623ca@corp.supernews.com...
Howdy fellow atheists,
On another newsgroup I've been having a discussion with a Christian
regarding the existance/non-existance of God.
What came up was the question of God's supposed omnipotence. The Xian
claims that God has limited his omnipotence and omniscience in order to
permit freewill for humans.
At first I thought this a ridiculous argument. If God were to give up
his omnipotence, then how could he ever get it back? Then it occurred
to me that God could reduce his powers for a limited period of time.
Sort of like handcuffing one self's arms behind their back with a pair
of handcuffs that automatically unlock after an hour.
Which brings me to a paradox I'm rather fond of for demonstrating the
impossibility of God:
"Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? If he can, then
his inability to lift it means that God is not omnipotent. If he cannot,
then his ability to create is limited. Thus, either way, his powers are
limited and hence God is not omnipotent. Since no omnipotent being
exists and God is defined to be omnipotent, God does not exist."
But what if God created a rock and then made himself unable to lift it
for 5 minutes? True, during those 5 minutes God is not omnipotent - and
therefore may not be a god for those 5 minutes - but he would return to
omnipotence at the end of 5 minutes.
Any thoughts, counter arguments, etc?
-- Shawn
Maybe a more powerful paradox can a god uncreate itself. If not is it all
powerful. Same thought different paradox.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bogie" |
|
| Title: Re: Paradox demonstrating God's non-existance... or not? |
22 May 2004 06:38:12 PM |
|
|
"Shawn" <use@reply.to.address> wrote in message
news:10atmgcev4623ca@corp.supernews.com...
Howdy fellow atheists,
On another newsgroup I've been having a discussion with a Christian
regarding the existance/non-existance of God.
What came up was the question of God's supposed omnipotence. The Xian
claims that God has limited his omnipotence and omniscience in order to
permit freewill for humans.
At first I thought this a ridiculous argument. If God were to give up
his omnipotence, then how could he ever get it back? Then it occurred
to me that God could reduce his powers for a limited period of time.
Sort of like handcuffing one self's arms behind their back with a pair
of handcuffs that automatically unlock after an hour.
Which brings me to a paradox I'm rather fond of for demonstrating the
impossibility of God:
"Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? If he can, then
his inability to lift it means that God is not omnipotent. If he cannot,
then his ability to create is limited. Thus, either way, his powers are
limited and hence God is not omnipotent. Since no omnipotent being
exists and God is defined to be omnipotent, God does not exist."
But what if God created a rock and then made himself unable to lift it
for 5 minutes? True, during those 5 minutes God is not omnipotent - and
therefore may not be a god for those 5 minutes - but he would return to
omnipotence at the end of 5 minutes.
Any thoughts, counter arguments, etc?
-- Shawn
Nah. This just gets countered with a theodicy that says, "God's not going
to bother making a rock that's too big for him to lift." The premise being
that god's omnipotence only gets applied to the things which bring glory to
himself. Making this big rock doesn't do anything for him. I think you're
better off with the argument from the suffering of the innocent. Are you
familiar with it?
bogie
.
|
|
|
| User: "bogie" |
|
| Title: Re: Paradox demonstrating God's non-existance... or not? |
22 May 2004 06:44:17 PM |
|
|
"bogie" <neverassumeyouknow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:EvRrc.4334$MY4.4231@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
"Shawn" <use@reply.to.address> wrote in message
news:10atmgcev4623ca@corp.supernews.com...
Howdy fellow atheists,
On another newsgroup I've been having a discussion with a Christian
regarding the existance/non-existance of God.
What came up was the question of God's supposed omnipotence. The Xian
claims that God has limited his omnipotence and omniscience in order to
permit freewill for humans.
At first I thought this a ridiculous argument. If God were to give up
his omnipotence, then how could he ever get it back? Then it occurred
to me that God could reduce his powers for a limited period of time.
Sort of like handcuffing one self's arms behind their back with a pair
of handcuffs that automatically unlock after an hour.
Which brings me to a paradox I'm rather fond of for demonstrating the
impossibility of God:
"Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? If he can, then
his inability to lift it means that God is not omnipotent. If he cannot,
then his ability to create is limited. Thus, either way, his powers are
limited and hence God is not omnipotent. Since no omnipotent being
exists and God is defined to be omnipotent, God does not exist."
But what if God created a rock and then made himself unable to lift it
for 5 minutes? True, during those 5 minutes God is not omnipotent - and
therefore may not be a god for those 5 minutes - but he would return to
omnipotence at the end of 5 minutes.
Any thoughts, counter arguments, etc?
-- Shawn
Nah. This just gets countered with a theodicy that says, "God's not going
to bother making a rock that's too big for him to lift." The premise
being
that god's omnipotence only gets applied to the things which bring glory
to
himself. Making this big rock doesn't do anything for him. I think
you're
better off with the argument from the suffering of the innocent. Are you
familiar with it?
bogie
An additional thought is how theists use "free will" as if it were THE queen
mother of all human "values" (I can't think of another term for it right
now). I'd have to question why human freedom is so important that an
omni-whatever god would limit itself to ensure it. Humans don't think that
way. When humans are doing shitty things to other humans, we limit the
freedoms of the *****-doers - i.e., Nazi genocide, etc. To stand back and do
nothing, allowing the evil stuff to continue, is itself an evil thing. That
this god would stand back and do nothing, in the interest of nothing more
than "free will", seems evil to me.
bogie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken W." |
|
| Title: Re: Paradox demonstrating God's non-existance... or not? |
22 May 2004 12:31:58 AM |
|
|
But what if God created a rock and then made himself unable to lift it
for 5 minutes? True, during those 5 minutes God is not omnipotent - and
therefore may not be a god for those 5 minutes - but he would return to
omnipotence at the end of 5 minutes.
Any thoughts, counter arguments, etc?
What if God made time invalid or slowed down our perception
of time? This doesn't seem like a limitation. Maybe a god could
make its powers conditional and have the powers reinstated after
some occurrence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shawn" |
|
| Title: Re: Paradox demonstrating God's non-existance... or not? |
22 May 2004 11:40:39 AM |
|
|
Ken W. wrote:
But what if God created a rock and then made himself unable to lift it
for 5 minutes? True, during those 5 minutes God is not omnipotent - and
therefore may not be a god for those 5 minutes - but he would return to
omnipotence at the end of 5 minutes.
Any thoughts, counter arguments, etc?
What if God made time invalid or slowed down our perception
of time? This doesn't seem like a limitation. Maybe a god could
make its powers conditional and have the powers reinstated after
some occurrence.
I'm not sure what you mean regarding invalidity of time and such... as
for the rest - isn't that basically what I was posing in the first place?
-- Shawn
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: Paradox demonstrating God's non-existance... or not? |
22 May 2004 03:15:27 PM |
|
|
In article <10atmgcev4623ca@corp.supernews.com>, use@reply.to.address
says...
At first I thought this a ridiculous argument. If God were to give up
his omnipotence, then how could he ever get it back? Then it occurred
to me that God could reduce his powers for a limited period of time.
Sort of like handcuffing one self's arms behind their back with a pair
of handcuffs that automatically unlock after an hour.
Temporary or not, the omnipotent being is not the entity performing the
action. Surrendering his powers makes him non-omnipotent and therefore
we cannot say that an omnipotent being performed the actions in
question. Think of it this way. Suppose I tell another guy that it's
impossible for men to have babies. This guy then goes to a shaman who
magically transforms him into a women. Then that individual gets
pregnant, has a baby and shows me the evidence. But the person is a
woman at the moment. My statement that a man cannot have a baby has not
been falsified. Even if the shaman later changes the person back into a
man again, this has not rendered my statement false.
Also, I would note, as a side point, that if the universe could get on
fine without an omnipotent god for an hour then it would seem to prove
that god is not a necessary part of the universe. Now I suppose that
you could keep on adding extra magic clauses like god setting things up
so that they would continue to run in his absence. However, again, if
it is possible for things to be set up to run without an omnipotent god,
perhaps the universe is already that way and no god is needed.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shawn" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: Paradox demonstrating God's non-existance... or not? |
22 May 2004 03:22:27 PM |
|
|
Thank you! This is the sort of input I was looking for.
quibbler wrote:
In article <10atmgcev4623ca@corp.supernews.com>, use@reply.to.address
says...
At first I thought this a ridiculous argument. If God were to give up
his omnipotence, then how could he ever get it back? Then it occurred
to me that God could reduce his powers for a limited period of time.
Sort of like handcuffing one self's arms behind their back with a pair
of handcuffs that automatically unlock after an hour.
Temporary or not, the omnipotent being is not the entity performing the
action. Surrendering his powers makes him non-omnipotent and therefore
we cannot say that an omnipotent being performed the actions in
question. Think of it this way. Suppose I tell another guy that it's
impossible for men to have babies. This guy then goes to a shaman who
magically transforms him into a women. Then that individual gets
pregnant, has a baby and shows me the evidence. But the person is a
woman at the moment. My statement that a man cannot have a baby has not
been falsified. Even if the shaman later changes the person back into a
man again, this has not rendered my statement false.
Also, I would note, as a side point, that if the universe could get on
fine without an omnipotent god for an hour then it would seem to prove
that god is not a necessary part of the universe. Now I suppose that
you could keep on adding extra magic clauses like god setting things up
so that they would continue to run in his absence. However, again, if
it is possible for things to be set up to run without an omnipotent god,
perhaps the universe is already that way and no god is needed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adrian" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: Paradox demonstrating God's non-existance... or not? |
24 May 2004 08:43:49 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 May 2004 21:41:55 -0700, Shawn <use@reply.to.address>
wrote:
Howdy fellow atheists,
On another newsgroup I've been having a discussion with a Christian
regarding the existance/non-existance of God.
What came up was the question of God's supposed omnipotence. The Xian
claims that God has limited his omnipotence and omniscience in order to
permit freewill for humans.
At first I thought this a ridiculous argument. If God were to give up
his omnipotence, then how could he ever get it back? Then it occurred
to me that God could reduce his powers for a limited period of time.
Sort of like handcuffing one self's arms behind their back with a pair
of handcuffs that automatically unlock after an hour.
Which brings me to a paradox I'm rather fond of for demonstrating the
impossibility of God:
"Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? If he can, then
his inability to lift it means that God is not omnipotent. If he cannot,
then his ability to create is limited. Thus, either way, his powers are
limited and hence God is not omnipotent. Since no omnipotent being
exists and God is defined to be omnipotent, God does not exist."
But what if God created a rock and then made himself unable to lift it
for 5 minutes? True, during those 5 minutes God is not omnipotent - and
therefore may not be a god for those 5 minutes - but he would return to
omnipotence at the end of 5 minutes.
Any thoughts, counter arguments, etc?
-- Shawn
The point of the rock question is not to "getcha" with a technicality.
The more general issue is that it is a *logical* inconsistency that
something that is all powerful be even merely *possibly*
self-limiting. And yet, if something is all powerful it must be at
least *able* to be self-limiting (or else that's something it cannot
do). (Either way you get something it cannot do.) So, whether God
chooses not to create such a rock is beside the point. And it is
equally irrelevant that such a being actively choose to limit its
power (as if the active choice to self-limit makes the issue somehow
not apply).
Or more specifically, an omnipotent being would be so powerful that
not even an omnipotent being could possibly limit it -- not even
temporarily and not even if that omnipotent being is itself. But,
then on the other hand, if it was truly omnipotent it would be able to
limit even an omnipotent being and not only for five minutes but
forever and even if that being was itself. (And so it is still a
paradox -- just a bit more of a mouthful.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: Paradox demonstrating God's non-existance... or not? |
24 May 2004 05:33:42 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 May 2004 21:41:55 -0700, Shawn <use@reply.to.address>,
Message ID: <10atmgcev4623ca@corp.supernews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
Howdy fellow atheists,
On another newsgroup I've been having a discussion with a Christian
regarding the existance/non-existance of God.
What came up was the question of God's supposed omnipotence. The Xian
claims that God has limited his omnipotence and omniscience in order to
permit freewill for humans.
Then it is neither omnipotent or omniscient. Humans routinely surpass
their deity's capabilities on a daily basis.
At first I thought this a ridiculous argument.
It is ridiculous and is not an argument, but a pathetic dodge attempt.
A coherant definition for the g-o-d letter string is? What's in the
dictionary as a 'definition'; begs the question (and many others),
handwaves furiously, and provides zero information. There is literally
nothing to look for or consider.
If God were to give up
his omnipotence, then how could he ever get it back? Then it occurred
to me that God could reduce his powers for a limited period of time.
Sort of like handcuffing one self's arms behind their back with a pair
of handcuffs that automatically unlock after an hour.
Absurdity piled upon absurdity.
Which brings me to a paradox I'm rather fond of for demonstrating the
impossibility of God:
"Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? If he can, then
his inability to lift it means that God is not omnipotent. If he cannot,
then his ability to create is limited. Thus, either way, his powers are
limited and hence God is not omnipotent. Since no omnipotent being
exists and God is defined to be omnipotent, God does not exist."
But what if God created a rock and then made himself unable to lift it
for 5 minutes? True, during those 5 minutes God is not omnipotent - and
therefore may not be a god for those 5 minutes - but he would return to
omnipotence at the end of 5 minutes.
Meaningless verbage and semantic games.
Any thoughts, counter arguments, etc?
-- Shawn
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: Paradox demonstrating God's non-existance... or not? |
24 May 2004 08:43:21 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2004 21:41:55 -0700, Shawn <use@reply.to.address>,
Message ID: <10atmgcev4623ca@corp.supernews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
Howdy fellow atheists,
On another newsgroup I've been having a discussion with a Christian
regarding the existance/non-existance of God.
What came up was the question of God's supposed omnipotence. The Xian
claims that God has limited his omnipotence and omniscience in order to
permit freewill for humans.
Piggybacking....
Here is a better one.
Can god do the impossible.
can god create a square circle?
Or a deeper question here is, does god create the
rules and laws and logic of the Universe?
If yes, he can do the impossible, and he could thus create a world where
man has free will yet freely choosees never to do moral evil.
But we do moral evil.
Thus if god does createthe rules and laws o the Universe, he could create a
world without moral evil and does not. Thus he is not omnibenevolent, he is
evil, omnimalevolent actually.
All evil is his creation and he is the sustaining cause of all evil.
In the usual problem of evil formulations, xians posit a lame an unworkable
claim god must allow evil to allow for free will.
Ignoring Romans 8 & 9 where free will is said to not exist.
But my question above leads to teh free wil defense being gutted.
so no, god is nont omnimalevolent thus he cannot do the impossible,. he
does not create the Universe's laws and rules and logic.
but if not, he cannot hav ecreated them.
There is no question of god playing games, he would have, being omniscient,
have to admit that to somehow change the Universe so he is no longer
creator of its laws, that to do so allows evil to exist where it need not,
and that is evil. So the xian cannot try that copout, or else god is
again, malevolent, the creator and sustaining source of all evil and free
will does not enter into it, its irrelevant in a world where god creates
the rules and laws and logic of the Universe.
Now that we have established to to avoid teh charge of malevolence god
gives up claims to create the universes laws, we realize these laws must be
outside and beyond him and thus preceed him.
He thus cannot have created the Universe with all its laws and rules and
logic. As claimed.
Also a dogma is the idea that god is the greatest power that can be
imagined.
No, the Universe and its laws and rules and logic that limit god
are more powerful.
So much for Anslem's ontological proof also.
And also, omnipotence disappears.
And where does this Universe with iots laws and rules and logic come from
and what are the rules, the laws, the logic of the universe and where do
they come from?
After many years of science, the rules of the Universe seem to be,
things that are of any complexity are made of matter, energy,
and are limited to the rules of physics, dimension, time, and ther cannot
be such things as disemboddied entities such as deities.
If the believer thinks so, the burden of proof is definitley well on them
now to show this hard evidence the such things do in fact exist.
Not maybe or could possibly, no more chasing phantoms.
Hard evidence only.
Try this on your friend.
Note this omni-everything god is the god of Greek philosophy.
Adopted by Christians from the Stoic and neoPlatonic philosphers,
this god became dogma with St Augustine.
But the god of the bible is really different.
The Greek/Christian theologian' god is omniscient for example.
But in Genesis 2, god lies to Adam to keep him from eating of teh tree of
magic fruit of knowledge of good and evil. And was not omniscient enough
to see that lie would fail quickly.
God is also the smartest being concievable, he should be able to easily
outwit an illiterate monkey boy. But wasn't smart enough to put up so much
as a Sears and Roebuck electric fence around his magic trees.
I am sure the Greek philosphers would have laughed at such a simpleton god,
had they only knew what a Sears and Roebuck electric fence was.
Which probably would have been more interesting to them anyways.
Cheerful Charlie
Cheerful Charlie.
Then it is neither omnipotent or omniscient. Humans routinely surpass
their deity's capabilities on a daily basis.
At first I thought this a ridiculous argument.
It is ridiculous and is not an argument, but a pathetic dodge attempt.
A coherant definition for the g-o-d letter string is? What's in the
dictionary as a 'definition'; begs the question (and many others),
handwaves furiously, and provides zero information. There is literally
nothing to look for or consider.
If God were to give up
his omnipotence, then how could he ever get it back? Then it occurred
to me that God could reduce his powers for a limited period of time.
Sort of like handcuffing one self's arms behind their back with a pair
of handcuffs that automatically unlock after an hour.
Absurdity piled upon absurdity.
Which brings me to a paradox I'm rather fond of for demonstrating the
impossibility of God:
"Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? If he can, then
his inability to lift it means that God is not omnipotent. If he cannot,
then his ability to create is limited. Thus, either way, his powers are
limited and hence God is not omnipotent. Since no omnipotent being
exists and God is defined to be omnipotent, God does not exist."
But what if God created a rock and then made himself unable to lift it
for 5 minutes? True, during those 5 minutes God is not omnipotent - and
therefore may not be a god for those 5 minutes - but he would return to
omnipotence at the end of 5 minutes.
Meaningless verbage and semantic games.
Any thoughts, counter arguments, etc?
-- Shawn
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
--
"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun
in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to
Canada. So I chose to better myself and learn to fly airplanes."
- George W. Bush May 1984 to the Houston Chronicle
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter van Velzen" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: Paradox demonstrating God's non-existance... or not? |
22 May 2004 05:41:33 PM |
|
|
Shawn <use@reply.to.address> wrote in message news:<10atmgcev4623ca@corp.supernews.com>...
Howdy fellow atheists,
On another newsgroup I've been having a discussion with a Christian
regarding the existance/non-existance of God.
What came up was the question of God's supposed omnipotence. The Xian
claims that God has limited his omnipotence and omniscience in order to
permit freewill for humans.
At first I thought this a ridiculous argument. If God were to give up
his omnipotence, then how could he ever get it back? Then it occurred
to me that God could reduce his powers for a limited period of time.
Sort of like handcuffing one self's arms behind their back with a pair
of handcuffs that automatically unlock after an hour.
Which brings me to a paradox I'm rather fond of for demonstrating the
impossibility of God:
"Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? If he can, then
his inability to lift it means that God is not omnipotent. If he cannot,
then his ability to create is limited. Thus, either way, his powers are
limited and hence God is not omnipotent. Since no omnipotent being
exists and God is defined to be omnipotent, God does not exist."
But what if God created a rock and then made himself unable to lift it
for 5 minutes? True, during those 5 minutes God is not omnipotent - and
therefore may not be a god for those 5 minutes - but he would return to
omnipotence at the end of 5 minutes.
Any thoughts, counter arguments, etc?
-- Shawn
It is actually easier than that.
As soon as God creates a rock, bigger than the biggest planet.
Seperating the rock from the planet would not be lifting the rock, but
should be considered as lifting the planet. Thus the rock would never
be lifted.
Unless god created a bigger rock of course.
No amount of time is needed, only a sequence of possible event.
There are some other problem with omnipotency.
1. If God is omnipotent everything else is impotent (that is:
powerless)
2. If God is omnipotent he is also omni-responsible. He can help it,
we can't!
3. If God is omnipotent he can sent all Atheists to heaven and all
theists to
hell. (there goes Pascal's wager again).
All in all, I would think an omnipotent god, needs not to be
worshipped, believed in or whatever, for it would be of no
consequence.
Think for yourself
Peter van Velzen, May 2004
Atheist#1107
Amstelveen (just South of Amsterdam)
The Netherlands (Aug 5, 1950)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: AA: Paradox demonstrating God's non-existance... or not? |
22 May 2004 07:33:46 AM |
|
|
Shawn wrote:
Howdy fellow atheists,
On another newsgroup I've been having a discussion with a Christian
regarding the existance/non-existance of God.
What came up was the question of God's supposed omnipotence. The Xian
claims that God has limited his omnipotence and omniscience in order to
permit freewill for humans.
At first I thought this a ridiculous argument. If God were to give up
his omnipotence, then how could he ever get it back? Then it occurred
to me that God could reduce his powers for a limited period of time.
Sort of like handcuffing one self's arms behind their back with a pair
of handcuffs that automatically unlock after an hour.
Which brings me to a paradox I'm rather fond of for demonstrating the
impossibility of God:
"Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it? If he can, then
his inability to lift it means that God is not omnipotent. If he cannot,
then his ability to create is limited. Thus, either way, his powers are
limited and hence God is not omnipotent. Since no omnipotent being
exists and God is defined to be omnipotent, God does not exist."
But what if God created a rock and then made himself unable to lift it
for 5 minutes? True, during those 5 minutes God is not omnipotent - and
therefore may not be a god for those 5 minutes - but he would return to
omnipotence at the end of 5 minutes.
Any thoughts, counter arguments, etc?
-- Shawn
Yes....'yawn' .......Shawn
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
